bingham. >> no by proxy. >> senator murray. >> no. >> senator reid. >> no. >> senator sanders. >> no. >> senator brown. >> no. >> senator casey. >> no. >> senator hagan. >> no by proxy. >> senator berkeley. >> no. >> senator whitehouse. >> no. >> senator enzi. >> aye. >> senator greggg. >> aye by proxy. >> senator alexander. >> aye by proxy. >> senator burr. >> aye by proxy. >> senator mccain. >> aye by proxy. >> senator hatch. >> aye by proxy. >> senator macao ski. >> aye by proxy. >> senator kennedy. >> no by proxy. >> 10 ayes, 13 >> number 783. coburn number 73. >> this is just another level of trying to keep us accountable. since we don't want the states to do it, and we don't want to give the states flexibilities, how about if we find that a work force program is ineffective, allowing the secretary to say so and redirect the funds to where the program is effective? that's all this amendment does. if the secretary says this isn't accomplishing anything, we're throwing money out of the door, i would like to redirect this money to a program that's working. >> it just gives the secre

we can no longer sell them. we can no longer dealer trade them.they have no incentives, in rebates, no warn tiranties, the just planter boxes on june 9th. then we get a call about june

i had no plans. i repeat, i have no plans. isn't it again remarkable what m p's are being told by their constituents is to concentrate on getting the politics of this country sorted out. they are being told to concentrate on getting us through the recession, build us a better future, and not one question from the leader of the opposition can be about the central issues facing our country. could the prime minister has chosen to make a statement about constitutional reform. he cannot complain that i am asking questions about it. when he talks about the economy, let's be clear what his legacy will be. not the most useless government we have had in history. it will be the biggest budget deficit in europe and the biggest in our history. let's be clear about this no plans are no proposals to day as he put it. a man with no democratic legitimacy who has never been elected as our prime minister, who has been defeated every time the public have been able to vote for him is now considering trying to fix the ru

no government mandate. no government money. >> the u.s. supreme court in a 5-4 ruling monday morning overturned a lower court decision in rericci v. destefano. the case has been watched closely because sonia sotomayor was [unintelligible] before we get into the details of the supreme court ruling, can you step back for a moment and outline what this case was about? >> what it is about is the city of new haven had a test --for promotion. it turned out no blacks qualified for more than one dozen promotions. the city decided what we would do is cancelled the test and cancel the promotion and when it did so, a group of mostly white, including one hispanic firefighter sued. >> at what level was the sioux rivers? >> the appeals court said they could not sue. that the city acted in good faith that it would be concerned that it would be settled -- sued by black firefighters. it had a disparate impact. it favored white firefighters at least in terms of the bottom line. the supreme court reversed that lower-court ruling and said no, the city does no

there was no arrogance or fear mongering in president obama's speech. he made no threats. he did not talk about an endless war on terrorism. instead, the president called for a new beginning between the united states and the muslim people. he renewed his pledge that america is not and never will be at war with islam. he called for cooperation instead of conflict. he courageously acknowledged the mistakes of the past and called for an end to mistrust. the president marginalized extremists by saying and i quote him, the enduring space of over a billion people is so much bigger than a narrow hatred of a few, unquote. he defended israel's right to live in peace while recognizing the palestinian people's right to a state of their own. on iran, president obama urged diplomacy and reiterated his call for a nuclear-free world. and he advocated for democracy, for religious freedom, economic opportunity and the rights of women and girls. madam speaker, everyone listening to the speech had to be inspired by the president's eloquence and good well, but the president also acknowledged

so let's be clear about the no plans or no proposals today as he put it, a man with no democratic legitimacy who never has been elected as our prime minister, who has been defeated every time the public has been able to vote for him is now considering trying to fix the rules of election before the next general election? isn't that what's happening? >> mr. speaker, on public spending an deficits, let him confirm that his proposals are for a 10% cut in the expenditures. if he wishes to raise the question of deficits and debt, let him confirm that that is now the proposal of the shadow chancellor to cut public expenditure by 10%, as confirmed by the shadow health secretary this morning and let us have a debate about the choice that really does exist in the country between a conservative party that now wants to cut even at a time of recession our basic public services and a labor party that wants to invest in them? let him also be honest with the country that when it comes to calling for election, he has absolutely no plans for dealing with the recession. he has no policies for dealing with unem

>> no. >> mr. thomas? >> i think it has been an open process. >> that is one of the problems i hope@@@@@@@@@ @ r7dn 3 of the documents this is a power point presentation. after looking at, this would be the criteria you said you using? can we have copies made to give to everyone here? >> since you have received your to letters, has anybody from either company, chrysler or gm, come to you and said we want to explain why we have done what we have done, and we want to give you a chance to show us the error of our ways, and if you wish to continue business relationship, here is what you need to do? >> no, they have not. do? >> no. they have not. >> mr. henderson and mr. press, do think it would be reasonable business practice to give dealers said in some cases have decades of relationships with the companies that you had some opportunity to know why they were evaluated the way they were and give them an opportunity to show why they may have been evaluated unfairly? >> yes, sir. i would like to add that because

there's no passion. there's no compassion in science. that's why people go back to religion. in fact, he doesn't know -- he doesn't know even political analysis because my political analysis or the political analysis of many people for this backlash going back to religion has nothing to do with compassion or we lack compassion in science. it's political. bin laden and george bush are twins. you know, they needed each other -- the whole problem of religious fundamentalism and going back to islamic fundamentalism or christian fundamentalism or jewish fundamentalism, it's political. it's economic. as if religion is separate, number one, from politics. religion is a political ideology. then he spoke about science as if science has no passion or compassion. i'm a medical doctor, and i felt a lot of passion and compassion as a medical doctor to my patients and if we really understand science, it's full of passion and compassion and passion and feelings. there is no separation between feeling and thinking. there is no separation between my body, my spirit, and my mind. you know, so

you did. >> to say i did not threaten anyone. >> no, no, no, no, no. i said you used the words that he was threatened. maybe you have been referring to paulson and so all i'm saying to you is that i can see how we got to where we've gotten to where it appears as if we've got paulson saying -- we've got lewis saying that you may have been behind the scenes doing things, we have you saying you were behind the scenes doing things. and then -- but at the same time you come back and say, well, you know, i just gave my opinion, it's not -- it was up to him. i did not think -- and i'm asking you: do you think it was up to him when paulson comes to him and says i'm going to fire you and release your board, is that the way you would want things to happen? >> i don't know what paulson said to him. >> the gentleman's time has expired but the witness -- excuse me -- the witness should answer the gentleman's question. >> i don't know what mr. paulson said to him but it was always his decision and i did not threaten him. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes -- >> t

congressman connolly. >> i was thinking, you need to follow -- >> no, no, no then we go to mr. jordan. you yield to him? >> i thank my colleague. briefly, he said. >> i have to get back to the floor. so i thank my colleagues an i thank the chair. mr. lewis, thank you look at the minutes of bank of america dated december 30, 2008. mr. lewis reported. those assurances of detailed notes with the federal regulators. it goes on to say that you discussed in detail, quote, the commitment of the federal regulators to deliver assistance in the form of capital and asset protection to the corporation. in the word commitment is used at least nine times, but just before the committee recessed for this vote in response to my question, you said there was no agreement in december. in fact, you said that it was for lack of agreement in december that you decided to make the announcement in j january. and that all three parties, treasury, federal reserve and bank of america agreed to that. how do you reckoncile your testimony today with what you told the board on december 30th? >> we were working

no runs, no hits, no errors and no one left on base. 9-0a's. and get one free after mail-in-rebate. are you insured? do you know when your beer is perfectly cold? or do you risk drinking a warm one? if you have the new coors light cold-activated can, you're covered. because now every can turns blue when your beer... is as cold as the rockies. it's cold insurance, only from coors light. cold beer: that's our policy. frost-brewed coors light. the world's most refreshing beer. >>> news travels fast. we just learned tonight in washington d.c. at the ritz karlton the 51 st annual emmy awards were held and proud to announce masn won award for best color analyst and our own gary thorn also won for best play by play announcer. masn is so proud of you. proud to have you part of the network. congratulations. back up to you both. >> thank you. that is very nice. >> buck: thanks, amber. quite an honor. congratulations partner. >> gary: you too. great crew that covers these games. there are none better. that's where it goes to. the pitch is a strike taken. cahill cruising along here with no

>> no, sir, that is not true. i haven't been produced to the discussions between my staff and your staff on this issue. we have been trying to come to an understanding about how to best provide the data in a format that is easily understandable but let me just say -- >> can you say what conditions the computer considers for a possible investigation? >> no single factor is used to trigger an investigation so we look at the system looks as its screening claims that come in at the effective date of the policy, effective date of the procedure, severity, type of service and diagnose code, those are all factors that go into the algorithm -- >> the algorithm no one from the company could tell what you commit to produce whatever the witnesses or documents are necessary to explain your algorithm, computer selection process, could you do that? >> yes, sir -- we are trying to put it in a format that would be acceptable to the committee. >> dr., professor pollitz do you see a common threat? heat got 1400 conditions, 2000 cond

>> no, it was not i. >> okay. mr. chairman, thank you for the time, i have to run to a 1:00 meeting. i want to thank the witness for his patience and thoughtful answers. >> i yield to the gentleman from ohio again, this time mr. kucinich. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lewis, we would hope a ceo would have a good memory and responsibility to take responsibilities for his actions. you stated in response to my previous question that you did not recall asking for a letter from the government stating that bank of america was ordered to proceed with the purchase of merrill lynch. this is the linchpin of clarifying whether you were threatened by the fed or whether the fed was tough with you because you were threatening to be irresponsible. i want to direct your attention to an e-mail response from the fed's general council to chairman bernanke's e-mail which i previously disclosed. mr. chairman, says, i don't think it's necessary or appropriate for us to give lewis a letter along the lines he asked. first, we didn't order

>> no by proxy. >> senator berkeley? >> no. >> senator whitehouse? >> no. >> senator enzi? >> aye. >> senator gregg? >> aye. >> senator alexander? >> aye. >> senator burr? >> aye by proxy. >> senator mccain? senator hatch? senator murkowski. senator roberts? >> the senator is recorded. senator, would you like to be voted as aye? >> chairman kennedy? >> no by proxy. >> 14 ayes -- or no, 11 ayes, 14 noes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. senator murray? >> mr. chairman, we are now ready to accept murkowski number 23 as modified. ask unanimous consent it be accepted. >> any objections to senator murkowski number 23 as modified? without objection, the amendment is agreed to. next up? >> mr. chairman, we have a meeting. >> do you have a meeting. maybe it's just as wise at this juncture. my view would be as i said earlier, i know our republican friends have a meeting to attend. >> if i could ask, i know the republicans are going to leave, how many more amendments we expect on this? >> i have no idea where we are -- four? judd, do you have any further ones on this one? this sect

we're going to vote at 5:30 to say no senators, no senator corker, no senator alexander, no senator bennett. we're going to say no to the other senators. you can't continue to debate. you can't continue to offer your amendment. we're going to obstruct your right to do that. we're going to keep you from representing the people from tennessee, the people of utah, the other people you were sent to represent. we're going to is to be the the debate, stop the amendment. that's the tyranny of the majority that alexis de tocqueville envisioned. that's not the way the senate has been running this year. the senators made a good-faith example of saying we're going to have some amendments. that means we're going to have amendments some of us don't really want to vote on them. there have been some i didn't want to vote on, some offered by people on my side of the aisle, some over there. but that's what we do in the united states senate. so why are we doing this? why are we saying suddenly no amendments? so i would hope that the senators, all of us, would agree that at 5:30 we should vote "no" -- we shou

anyone who votes no on this supplemental is voting no on this provision. and that would be a serious mistake. it is critical that this nation retain a strong domestic auto industry. and this effort on the demand side is a critical piece of that effort. i ask for an additional minute. mr. arcuri: i yield to the gentleman an additional minute. mr. levin: this is not an easy effort and there have been different ways to go about it. and i simply want to say to those who have been in the lead and especially to representative sutton, this would not have happened without the dedication of herself and others who have been determined that there be continued in this country a strong domestic auto industry. it's that clear. other countries have stepped up to the plate. they have provided support. this is now a necessary implementation of this effort. so i plead with people on the minority side to listen, to step up to the plate, to not look for arguments or excuses to duck. there is no ducking the need for a strong domestic auto industry, not only for ohio, not only

what it costs to look people up, costs to have them come back out with no skills, no prospects for housing no prospects for jobs, no prospects to vote, really stripped of their opportunity to recover from whatever happened, it's just a failing system. front end, back end, and from the public's point of view. so governors are trying to close prison and the small towns and prison guard jobs make us -- long-ed into a system where people had an interest in perpetuating it, even though if you step back you say this can't be. we have to get rid of it. so, when you go in -- and our kids -- the fact we had this odd family where we visited prisons, it's not that odd if you had 2.2 million people in prison, then that means at any given day you have eight, ten million kids, of people who are incarcerated and a much larger number of people who are relatives and family and friends. so a huge sector of the american population, half a million people a year coming out of prison. half a million people a year. and i don't know how many of your audience has been in a prison recently but if you haven't been,

they would have no problems. we don't plan to repurchase parts and our job should be fully advertised. >> our redistribution plan, we plan to have parts, vehicles and special tools taken from the dealers that are not going forward and brought into the new dealers. >> thank you. >> senator, may i respond to that? >> yes, you may. >> as far as the parts and the tools, what we have -- we did get an e-mail that said that it was up to us to sell them to other dealers or they're going come in and offer us 10% on the dollar. i haven't seen anything else that said chrysler or gm would buy them back. >> obviously we have a communications issue. we do have information -- >> we have a big one, yeah. >> i will address both of these gentlemen. i would be happy to do that. it is our failure of not communicating appropriately to them. >> mr. henderson, in response to that? >> the same. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i know it is not my prerogative to ask the questions, but there is a question that came up earlier

this bill is no different. it is over 1100 pages in length and 50 pages dedicated to regulating light bulbs. the most punitive cost of this bill is being shifted to later years to get it passed. the subsidy will shift to consumers who will pay directly to sustain this program through higher, job killing energy crises. the taxpayer bears the burden. this bill is a pipe dream. we need to focus on an energy solution that reports innovation using american-made energy, not trying to find a way to tax our way to prosperity and continued this horrific a job loss. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from texas. >> i want to yield one minute to the congresswoman from illinois. >> she is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. in my home state of illinois we depend on nuclear coal and natural gas for our electricity. this bill discriminates on these energy sources. illinois it will be hit especially hard. gas prices will rise 75 cents a gallon. this is pa

>> no. >> it would take priority over that. >> no, it wouldn't. no. because it takes priority over messaging, not screening. messaging on breast cancer. okay? breast cancer is one of the five. cancer is one of the -- that's the fifth group actually. >> one of the successes we've had with breast and cervical cancer xreeng and it's been a great success has been in the media campaign and getting the information out. >> and they were not going to do anything any less than that when they were going to spend all this money and have a coordinated event. we're going to coordinate the message in terms of the media. we're going to chordor nate the same message. they can take the same program they're doing now. what we're saying we're going to take a new look at this and make it a priority. >> well, are we okay with that part? okay. >> take the strike out. >> the strike is taken out. good job, tom. >> thank you. >> i'd ask for all of those in favor of the modified coburn amendment as modified, say aye. >> mr. chairman? we don't have a forum. >> who had to make t

oh, no. no, no, no. you've got it wrong. we are already going to give them the money anyway, so it doesn't cost anymore. that's not reality. that's not the way it works. c.b.o. is right, $938 billion over five years. we had our president just maybe three weeks ago, four weeks ago, say, after spending this -- all these trillions of dollars, the president said, i'm going to ask my budget to cut a whopping $100 million from all their budgets across government. $100 million. that is this bill, just for one year. as the gentleman says, just one year. with the bottom line is, it's $938 billion over five years. you just can't have it both ways. you can't try and explain to the american people that you're really trying to do something good for them, but turn around and make it more difficult. i think our friends that are on the majority party don't understand that you just can't sneak up here to washington and do this and get away with it back home. people are going to pay attention to this madam speaker, at this time, i'd like to y

they're like no way, no more. i don't think no matter what he says, i understand the politics. you have to have the people in israel, you know what i mean, because you were voted in, et cetera. i understand it's a democracy. the thing is, i will tell you i can already see this happening, especially if hillary clinton says it, forget it. when the american people -- the obama administration including hillary clinton and the state department, then it doesn't matter if he does a fine line they're not going to change course, hard-line, no more settlements, no more natural growth and no more outposts and it's done. i think the american people including the obama administration is over it. it seems like oh, yeah, what are you going to do about it. like he said, what are you going to do about it? they're going to stop giving israel money and not help him with this iran thing. host: sir? gues guest: not living up to the palestinian settlement freeze. i'm not sure that is a good argument to make. that is what the israeli opinion is. in israel, both sides agreed to accept, but none of the

no. do you have a black studies department here? no. it's a very traditional curriculum, saying reid, when i talked to the reid students, we discussed academic freedom issuers an they didn't insert horowitz or a right wing. and so i took that as a good sign as well. they don't have those departments. : who was in revolt against the revolutions of liberty in the 18th-century. ayars are regarded as they are still pushing castro totalitarianism. you can see it in the t-shirts. he is an icon -- this is a mass murderer who executed 14 year-old. is it is the coward it is what he was an as for ballast. retarded -- i was a new lift test, we don't think that much of maoism and i didn't think that much of it were oral because of the university of texas the entire board of trustees appointed by two republican governors, bush and perry, a red state. you could take a course in the world scene through j guevara's eyes. that is the course, you read three works by him and the professor introduces from rating support of material because of a forest to s

then there is no voter fraud, no election fraud. if you go back to erlandson, is this a right or a privilege, the court didn't resolve that question. what is happening now, there's a great motion in this country, 10% of our voters voted absentee this time, people are voting absentee. it is no longer a privilege. the court didn't resolve it in erlandson that the majority of the court voted -- this situation in skinner against o'brien is about whether they could vote at all, not whether it is a privilege to vote absentee. that is what it has become in this site. is this court -- >> doesn't the legislature have a right to be concerned and put in a strict standard? don't we defer that the legislature's decides the strict standard. the cases are replete where fraud happened with absentee ballots. >> if you go against prints, those cases all say that when a person makes a good-faith attempt to vote, absent fraud, substantial compliance is about, absent fraud, maybe the law -- maybe it is the character of the people in minnesota. i do have

this no longer is tenable. what answer he gives to that question would be my evaluation of whether or not he has actually peeled away from the system with the people. you cannot hedge any more. as we see in my country, it means you cannot want god and data at the same time. you have to pick one or the other. >> in your answer, you leave open the door for future participation in a democratic iran. can you tell us if you have any research today that tells how many people would support you in iran? in other words, in this turbulent time, what is your approval rating? >> well, people support me because the -- because of the very fact that we are talking the same language, freedom, democracy, human rights, the right to choose and freely elect whoever we deem to play a role. i am not asking people to support me today because of me. i am demanding people support me so that i can best serve them to achieve their goal, which is freedom. again, for the umpteenth time i say if there was a choice in iran of the people sayi

oh, no, oh, no, no, no, it's here. it's right here. the full faith in credit of the united states is pledged to the payment of all guarantees issued under this section with respect to principal and interest. the term green portion means with respect to an eligible mortgage, the portion of the mortgage principal referred to in subsection 2 that is attributable as determined in accordance with the regulations issued by the secretary. so, we have a new government program and we're going to guarantee this with the full faith in credit of the united states. and on page 184, on april 1 or a later date established by the administrator under subconnection j of the calendar year in which the term offset credit expires, the owner or operator holds for purposes of filing, demonstrating compliance or allowance or a domestic offset credit. i read it because i cannot tell what you that means. on page 190 at the bottom of the page it talks about aljay. on page 189 we got renewable biomass -- algae. on page 189 we have renewable biomass. this is the t

>> no, that's interesting. the classic case is probably at its most forceful when it's a sub instant i right that's being created. one's talking about the the admission of evidence which is uniquely something courts are able to talk about, and you might say, well, the supreme court would have more competence at deciding have you crossed a line where something is so fundament total fairness of the criminal process that it ought to be recognized as a constitutional right. >> right, but the chief justice said in his opinion, you know, federal court should be reluctant to get themselves in issues of state post conviction release procedures and really only do that when those procedures are, as he wrote, fundamentally inadequate which he concluded weren't here and again as his -- >> just to contrast that interesting opinion with one that came down this week, the confrontation clause case. >> oh, that's the next one. >> oh, you're going to get into that. >> no, go ahead. >> i don't want to preempt you, but this answer

no indication of what that was and no summary. certainly no text. -- quote -- "i participated in a panel entitled sexual harassment how to practice safe employment." no explanation. next -- quote -- "i spoke on the united states judicial system." next, i spoke on the topic of lawyering for social justice. close quote. i discussed my life experiences and the role of minority bar organizations, close quote. i participated in a symposium on post conviction relief. i spoke on the execution of judgments of conviction. i spoke on the implementation of the hague convention in the united states and abroad, close quote. -- quote -- "i praised in a discussion on sentencing -- i participated in a discussion on sentencing guidelines. i praise pra*euted in a round table discussion and reception on the art of judging at this event. that would be nice to note what she thought about the art of judging. i contributed to the panel, the future of judicial review, the view from the bench at the 2004 national convention of the -- where the official th

in the bill of rights is a series of nos. says there are things the government simply may not do unreasonable searches and seizures, take away our guns -- no pity so no has a role in politics where is in the rest of life most new ideas are bad, most new ideas are false and the truth is less pleural than all the errors in the world so saying no is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. but beyond that i like to think i have solutions to a lot of america's problems, not all of them but i certainly got ids. they don't involve expanding the government. now some people say that if you are against expanding the government you are generally negative -- that's not true. i am for the market, high import indigent -- individual initiative and unleashing on japan your initial up, and health care for example which the caller mentioned insuring the uninsured is the simplest thing in the world come and give them money, give them money in the form of subsidies, vouchers, a debit card it loaded up with a certain value -- that is the simple part

of no. i wrote the following at this time this past january. i quote -- "we have no choice but to govern differently. times demand it. if we do not govern differently, we will have taken no lessons from the bad experience of the bush years." that goes for republicans and democrats alike, mr. president. in my first address to this chamber this year, i reminded both republicans and democrats, when we retreat to partisanship, when we fail to reach for common ground, we rob ourselves of the ability to create the change the american people demand. as the health care debate approached in april, i reached out to our republican colleagues and wrote this, "rather than saying no, we must be willing to offer concrete and constructive proposals. we cannot afford more of the obstructionist tactics that have denied and delayed congress's efforts to address so many of the critical changes facing this nation." end of quote. last week i reminded the other side our hands are outstretched across the aisle. jus

>> no. but if you wish to were we could arrange that. >> no. i don't want a trip to california. >> no. i think we're okay. we're not asking about that, this is a committee investigation and we would be exempt. >> can council answer that question for us? >> would you care to comment? >> we are official setting. this is an official of the u.s. congress. speech and debate protection certainly helps us, i don't think any of us will ask about the class action suit. the speech and debate clause. >> i thank the chairman >> again, i thank the three witnesses. i want to make a comment on what ms. baiten said about myself. there are 435 congressman and every one of us, our job is to help constituents. i have four full-time caseworkers. mr. wright to my left here. -- was my district director at the time. i had christie and jody and ron and linda all intervened for you. i came in at the very end and talked to the president. but not just myself but every member of congress, we've helped hundreds, sometimes thousands of people every year. your case just happ

[applause] >> there is no world sovereignty, there is no world system of law. there is in fact no circumstance under which i would like to be a citizen of north korea, zimbabwe, venezuela, cuba or russia. i am a citizen -- [cheers and applause] >> i am a citizen of the united states of america. and the rest of this speech is about the united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> america is an unique civilization. calista and i a couple of years ago did a movie called "rediscoverying god in america" which ises a walking tour of this city. we did it deliberately. it was our answer to the ninth circuit of court which is in fact irrationally out of touch with this country and irragly ruled that one nation under god was unconstitutional, grounds for my thought we should abolish the court and -- thomas jefferson eliminated 18 out of 35 federal judges, over one half of all federal judges. i am merely proposing one court of appeals. i am a moderate on this issue. [applause] >> but the core of this is a very historic straightforward debate. it's not a theological

>> no, the way i would characterize it would be that not speaking for the fed, but somebody on the outside who was familiar with mergers and acquisitions, had that person known we had not strongly considered the change, they would have thought we were asleep at the switch. >> didn't you have a responsibility to way that, in fact, when in doubt assert the possibility, in other words if you had to err, you had to err on the side that you had to look for the material adverse change, not assume it wasn't there? you had to assume it could be there and you had to look for it? >> well, particularly when we saw the acceleration, yes,sir. >> okay. so i'm trying -- i don't want to spend a lot of time on that part of it because i think it's beyond the purview of this committee. on december 17th, when you called chairman bernanke and secretary paulson to tell them you were thinking of exercising the mac clause, which again, you had an obligation to at least consider, were you motivated to do so because

no rationale or no -- nothing in the air that give me hope. because sadat was saying, i will kill them. but still something -- the inner voice of the writer and the years -- the safe confidence, the inner voice of the creative writer comes to you and tell you, you will survive. and i felt i will survive. and that i'm surviving, you know? >> yes. but you've also had to spend some time outside your country. >> yes. >> in part because you have been very critical, as you were this evening, of the role of religion, in our society and in your society and at the moment in your society, there's a very powerful fundamentalist, religious movement which is committed, among other things, to killing people that it disapproves of. and i'm wondering what it is that persuades you that you're safe to go home right now? apart from optimism, which i would like to share. >> because there is no safe place -- there is no safe place, number one. you know, i can have a car accident or the plane -- you know, for me, i developed maybe because of my medical profession o

no one in israel wants war. if we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples - in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education - most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquillity, creativity, opportunity and hope. my dear friends,if the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years? in order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: what is the root of the conflict? in his speech to the first zionist conference in basel, the founder of the zionist movement, theodore herzl, said about the jewish national home "this idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms. "today, i will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible. eve

there is no personnel. i will also submit they will cut very few field of people with you were dealers those fixed cost will go up. the other comment is the sales responsibility just too quickly educate the committee, they take the state average penetration for their brand and they expect every dealer to hit state average penetration in black of the problem is just to take an exaggerated, and not exaggerated by an example of how that can be skewed to an unfair management it has been found in ohio and through expert testimony they have thrown out many cases as a criteria, one of the terminated rejected stores in the congresswoman district, there is a dodge dealership in the middle of four country. two ford plants one was shattered but still a lot of residual buyers and living there, retirees and a planned still going. this dealership is right between that. 100 miles to the west is another dealership near a jeep plant in toledo ohio. the dealer in toledo mend my dealership is held to exact the same standard

, no, no, there is some play for the( they had finally worked out their differences and come to an afwreement where both agencies worked together, and in this case both agencies issued permits, and the court decided we are not going to substitute our judgment for what the agencies have done with respect to their allegation of responsibility under the clean water ack. >> thank you. let me move on now. john, what should we say about the first amendment this term? >> well, the first amendment this term, the really interesting case is still to be decided on monday. justice roberts' successful attempts to bring union anyonity made the other cases less exciting. in your hand out, the case about union regulation and the case about the monument in the park, the court really did not change the law substantially as evidence by unanimous results and almost unanimous opinions in both cases. so i tholed i would focus on the most exciting case where i do expect there could be some substantial change in the law, and that is the citizens united case, which is the case about the -- very briefly because of tim

when conshe knowable men in all humanity witness that scene, no one, no one -- look at that, tell me, do you notice the tanks? instead all we will notice is the power of that one man. what we know is that he, a mere mortal man, and the righteousness that symbolizes are far more powerful than any tanks or weapons. in conclusion, i would like to reiterate that justice is far more powerful than violence and that peace will triumph violence. our mission is to severely punish the corrupt officials in china, to end the chinese communist one party authoritarian regime and create the third republic. we firmly believe that we, the chinese people, will one day live in an era which respects freedom, democracy, and human rights. thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. kumar of amnesty international. you are here? could you come forward to the stage, please? kumar?

there are no safeguards at all. as a matter of fact, this bill envisions the $1 billion over five years, or more than $2 billion over 10 years swelling to $4 billion over 10 years or more because in fact it believes it should be eight weeks of special leave. now in the rules committee, i was told i just didn't understand, that germany gives a year when you have a child. you know, the amazing thing is germany and france and many of these countries are going the opposite direction because they recognize they were losing competitiveness and the generous benefits, though good to have, were unsustainable. they're particularly unsustainable when the only people who can afford it are those who live off the taxpayers -- i'd like to say generosity, but this money is taken involuntarily and spent at the whims of congress. madam speaker, federal employees enjoy one of the highest levels of job security without a doubt anywhere in the united states. i would venture to say many of them, the highest. more importantly in good time

yes and no columns on these forms. given that i don't think any of you are physicians will be helpful if there was an uninsured, don't know column as well that you could check? which then i would think if i am the insurer would cause me to go, thereay be something here i should look at further. and, because i mean the insurers when you read through their testimony they make the case that look, it is a very small percentage although it is a very painful percentage. i am just telling you what they are telling us. if we did every one it would slow down people getting access to insurance, blah, blah. said they say we investigate those where we have cause or an issue. that is something we will get to with the next panel but there's this notion that it is a very small segment of the population, and so to get people covered they go this direction. >> i don't believe that it is a small segment of the population. i believe they sent anyone who sends in a claim to this's claims underwriting department and i have heard many peopl

he had no idea he had gallstones and an aneurysm and your company rejected him. >> mr.chairman, i would really like to comment on that case but due to privacy concerns i am not able to but i can tell you that in situations where we uncovered that the individual was not aware of the condition we would not go forward with precision. >> do all of your clients and policyholders have to get a hold of the attorney general to get it done? that's what raddatz had to do a duty like him twice. >> we have a very detailed appeals process. in fact, after the three levels review and the entire committee voting for recision we notify the customer, we give them 15 days, we delayed the recision giving them an opportunity to respond with additional information and when it does come in we have a different underwriter look at the appeal and they may appeal as many times as they would like. >> raddatz only had two or three weeks to get his stem cell. >> we go through the process as fast as possible. >> i apologize i didn't see you there, you changed the color of your suit. i will go to your

i have no confusion on that subject. [applause] thank you very much. if i may, on behalf of many who have specifically asked me to tell you from the four corners of iran, from the high-school is, from a seminary group, from students, from factory workers, they have all asked me among other things to tell you, the members of the media how much they appreciate your attention on the iranian cause, and some of them in a more audacious way, it isÑÑÑÑÑññ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> coming up in a moment, c- span's "washington journal" and the u.s. house. they will develop u.s. veteran'' compensation measures. live coverage here on c-span. .

gecko: uh no sir, honestly... uh...i don't think...uh... boss: no, no. we can do this. vo: geico. fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. welcome to chili's. something new is on the grill. try chili's new fire-grilled quesadillas, starting at just $6.99. like our bacon-ranch chicken quesadilla, flame-grilled tortillas layered with all white meat chicken, applewood smoked bacon, jack cheese, and ranch dressing. they're crispy on the outside, melted to perfection on the inside. you've never tasted quesadillas like this before. new fire-grilled quesadillas, starting at just $6.99. only at chili's. . >> bob:  nationals baseball manz brought to you by southwest airlines. book your next trip at southwest.com. and by pnc bank. pnc, leading the way. from the young zimmerman to the older dunn, getting things done these days for the nats. 3-1 lead, top of the 8th inning. the blue jays have a runner aboard and kip wells underway. coming up on notice extra, johnny holiday and phil wood breaking down ross detwiler's outing. willie harris dazzles again notice

no one knows what to do, no one wants them. host: president obama meets today with the president of columbia. it's as the uribe faces a more wary u.s. the white house ceremony in january -- at this ceremony, president george w. bush awarded the colombian president the presidential medal of freedom and praised him for his immense personal courage for taking on his country's fight against marxist guerrillas. this time uribe will encounter an administration pushing to expand its alliances in latin america and an increasingly worried about colombia's abysmal record for human rights. one more call regarding detainee policy, this one from michigan. caller: good morning, i have been listening to these people calling in saying that these detainees are some some kind of super-humans cannot be kept safely in an american prison, if in fact they're guilty of anything. the person who called and claimed we did not try the nazis until 20 years later for war crimes does not have the right. nuremberg happen very shortly after the war. and for t

oil, no gasoline, no nuclear, no drilling, and that means no natural gas. just what do they expect to use to power the nation's cities and industries? the taxo contracts -- taxocrats plan is simple, tax energy consumption. according to the national black chamber of commerce, the national energy tax will cost another 2.5 million jobs in america. america cannot afford any more of this change. the cap and trade bill will cost jobs, raise taxes, raise the cost of energy, and according to the congressional budget office won't even significantly help the climate. the bill is bad for everybody except the enviro elites to get more government control over the rest of of us. what we need to do is cap the taxocrats and trade them for offshore riggs in the -- rigs in the gulf of mexico. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman fruse for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. teague: thank you, madam speaker. i want to congrat late tullah rosa high school for receiving a bronze medal in

there is no reason for us to do that because there is no way to know at this point whether we will have our work done at that time. there's no reason to set that date today. that is troublesome. we don't know if we will be ready by the 13th or not. there is a lot of history that suggests it will be very, very difficult to be ready by that time. the last speaker pointed out if you compare the record of the now chief justice john roberts as opposed to this nominee, you have more than 10 times as many cases to look at with judge sotomayor as you had with justice roberts. that takes a lot of time. even with 20-some staffers reading these 4,000-plus decisions, it is not just a matter of reading these cases, it is worth realeding to see if you think the judge was right in the decision rendered. to look at the other references in the case to see how closely this followed the existing law, and whether it appears the judge might be trying to make law as opposed to deciding the law. and that is important in this case which the president has cladelade down which strongly suggests something stronge

one of the things he has no comps at home. no free passes which means no walks.d to believe you can't get a lot of wins when you don't walk anybody. 29 innings with less than 3 walks. he's only got two walks here at home. four no decisions and four losses in his last eight starts. that's what we really got to get koji on track and get back in that win column because we're really wasting a lot of good efforts out there. >> on the other side, it's the right-hander tim redding former national going for the mets. >> almost number one but maybe not a good way. he's got the highest e.r.a. of any starting pitcher with 100-plus innings. he's second in the major leagues, not the highest. but he is good in the first inning. in the first inning the opposition's b.a. against him is .158. they'd sure like to see him go seven or eight innings like that. >> he's only faced the orioles once in his career. that ended up being a no decision. what's the rick dempsey key to the game? >> you've got to be in the lead after six innings. the orioles so far this year, it's been amazing,

>> i have no specific information it is mostly anecdotal. i have reason to believe through my conversations with some of the u.s. organizations that have been doing this over the years that by and large the north korean people understand from where this assistance is coming and in some cases i think in recent years the food we provided even comes with american flag on the back which is still there when it's distributed to the people of north korea. so i think the north korean people will please understand better than we might expect the himeno terrie in process of the united states and its people. >> thank you, senator. senator dorgan? >> thank you very much for being here. i just want to underscore the point that senator wicker made it the beginning of this hearing about the two journalists, and i understand the limitations of this hearing. i must tell of the gross human rights violation by north korea and taken the lead could taking human pawns in some way as they see it for negotiations with the united states or regards to their other iss

>> no sir. well, the -- he never said we should not disclose anything that was discloseable, that would be our decision and i never heard from him on the issue of us not disclosing something. >> anything else -- look like you're trying to go somewhere. >> the second piece i thought you asked me, sir, was the issue of him not wanting us to call the mac and he did express that to us. >> when did he do that? >> he expressed it on more than one occasion. i don't remember which dates but several dates. if you are an experienced man, i understand you have great judgment, apparently when you thought about this mac thing, it was based upon your own experiences, was it not? yes, sir. >> what were you thinking? >> i was thinking that the losses had accelerated to a point that they were out of line with other institutions and our institution. >> so you still -- if you were to go back, you would thing there was not a mac situation? >> i can't say that there wasn't a mac because we never called it so we just

if there is no agreement. we certainly could offer and should offer a nuclear guarantee to every country in the region, israel included, that is to say, and threat of force involving nuclear weapons involving iran as a nuclear power would be a threat viewed as a threat against the united states. and i think we have sufficient credibility to make that stick. we can certainly consider the possibility, also, of perhaps suggesting a nuclear free zone in the middle east. that would require israeli cooperation. but, if the israeli government is that in eastern, which has nuclear weapons, even has only one, poses an existential threat to israel, israel in effect is saying that its nuclear deterrent is not capable of deterring the iranians. the israeli argument is that the iranians may be irrational, fanatical and therefore as soon as they have one bomb they might actually use it against the israelis there by creating an existential stet threat and if that is the case the israeli deterrents fails to deter in which cas